Rating Your Philosophical HOT TAKES
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 июн 2024
- Go to ground.news/AlexOC to see through media bias. Subscribe through my link for 30% off unlimited access
To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
- TIMESTAMPS
0:00 Intro
0:29 God shows sinners mercy by sending them to hell
1:09 The Catholic Church is correct in everything she teaches
2:11 The eucharist is about cannibalism
2:24 Ending my life is my choice
7:10 Life is always worth living
8:16 Libertarian free will exists
8:23 Forgiveness can be toxic and impede personal growth
9:47 Jesus is the only way to eternal life
10:10 What's a hot take?
10:19 If moral realism is false then nothing matters
10:57 Even if I am 100% certain of something, it can be false
12:48 Time doesn't exist
3:03 Dialogues are overhyped
15:02 The reason incest is wrong is because it's "icky"
16:55 Democracy is a breeding ground for populism
17:54 Outro
- SPECIAL THANKS
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
John Early
Dmitry C.
Mouthy Buddha
Solaf
- CONNECT
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
- CONTACT
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------
![KFF Singapore Badminton Open 2024 | He/Ren (CHN) vs. Alfian/Ardianto (INA) [7] | F](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/an7AykjOaAA/mqdefault.jpg)
Go to ground.news/AlexOC to see through media bias. Subscribe through my link for 30% off unlimited access
Thank you for changing the color of your shirt for the ad, making it easily skippable. Many youtubers forget even this common courtesy. You're a true English gentleman.
With ground news you can see through media bias by using a different biased source pretending to be unbiased.
Yo Alex; I was wondering if you could do analysis on having similar views that you have to Fydor Dostoevsky, Franz Kafka, G.K Chesterton, Max Stirner, George Orwell, and Ayn Rand
Also further explaining how religious figures like William Wilberforce, Fredrick Douglass, Dr King, and Cesar Chavez greatly shows that Atheism still need to work on their original values of morality
Can’t wait for more!
That transition was really smooth
@@valmid5069 Ethics and morality are instincts, derived from evolution. And speaking as an old ex-Catholic, over half a century free from that church, there are few Christian churches less moral than that one, some Protestant fundamentalists aside. If we really want to know where our morality comes from, we need only look at our fellow ape species.
The most insane take in this video BY FAR is that minty is the opposite of spicy.
like...it isn't that wrong? one is cold one is hot
@@krembryle7903 Fire if it burns long enough makes you cold, cold if left long enough burns.
So what's the opposite of spicy? I feel like it has to be something that has the potential to be extreme in its own direction; milky or creamy wouldn't do that, but minty would.
No that take from you is definitely spicy.
Yeah I've always thought of sweet as the opposite of spicy *shrug*
"Minty" being the opposite of "spicy" needs it's own philosophical discussion.
No IIRC the kind of spicy being referred to here activates the thermal nerves that detect heat in the tongue while mint activates the thermal nerves that detect cold so they are in a very real way opposites.
@@CrystalLily1302"Spicy" can also be described as just "An unpleasant feeling created from non-harmful compounds activating nerves that signal danger/pain" in which case minty is spicy.
@@kakahass8845If that were the case, then pain itself would be spicy. That’s a flawed definition.
@@bunsenn5064You could say that for basically every type of pain though.
@@CrystalLily1302 I believe heat here refers to innovation; like the discovery of fire. So a cold take would be the loss of progress.
Here’s my hot take: someone who is medically psychopathic and thus feels no empathy towards other humans but chooses to behave ethically towards them anyway is more morally praiseworthy than someone who does good because it appeases their conscience.
The obvious question from that is what motivates the psychopath? It’s clearly not altruism as he is incapable of empathy, but it also isn’t self interest because if it was it can’t be ‘more’ morally praiseworthy than if a non-psychopath acted the same way
@@1awlfc1 At that point wouldn't the only possible explanation be some vow of truth, because regardless of personal feelings, a psychopathic person can still be reasoned with to determine what is in the general interest of people and will act accordingly to do what they perceive as right.
@@legittaco5899 But I think motivation remains the issue. Using reason to persuade the psychopath who is incapable of empathy will inevitably conclude that morally right behaviour either helps others (therefore empathy) or himself (self-Interest, therefore no more morally praiseworthy than a non-psychopath). Unless there would be a way to persuade the psychopath with reason that didn’t ultimately boil down to empathy or self interest.
@1awlfc1 Why cannot all internet discussions be like that?
Good points you two.
That’s not a hot take.
"Suffering from a poverty of imagination" is going straight onto my gentle insults list
Passive-aggression is a sign of maturity
@@Minisynapsepersonally I wouldn't make an absolute judgement when it comes to being passive agressive, it is better sometimes and worse other times.
It’s funny because it seems to me like a very obvious thing to say whenever you’re discussing perspectives, so it’s almost as if you’re not only admitting that you love that expression but how well it would apply to yourself. Whether this is the case or not (I clearly know nothing about you, you were probably just appreciating the way it was worded) I believe the best insults are those that point out on others the filth we see in ourselves. So if that logic is true, I must be doing that quite frequently (yes it happens but I’m quite ashamed of that, if I end up acting as if I’m any better, which also happens). I will milk that argument even more, and say that this is precisely what Alex is doing here as well. I mean he knows very well that many people who hold the position he is criticizing are just as capable as he is to imagine that kind of suffering. Some don’t even need that kind of abstraction exercise because they have gone, or are going through incommensurable pain. What he is really saying is that he lacks the imagination to understand how people could experience bliss and find meaning even among the toughest and most excruciating (o wait does that word perhaps refer to a cross?😂) circumstances and therefore he does not stand with the idea that life is always worth to be liven.
@@MinisynapseI would already be in a coffin if this were true
@@Minisynapsepassive aggression is a sign of lack of ability to confront issues, a sign of immaturity
Using suicide as a segue to the sponsor was definetely indian spicy
Oof. "Segway" is a brand. "Segue" is the general term for rhetorical transition.
Let’s segue into an argument on why you should stfu. Just kidding (kinda)
@@johnrogstad1278Not in 20 years
Yeah that was pretty messed up ngl
@@johnrogstad1278 you are right lol sorry. Not my first language. I corrected it.
Rating the guy who complained you didnt clearly define "hot take" was hilarious lol
His "letter to the editor" will be in amongst these comments no doubt. Look for one several paragraphs long.
Alex respects his viewers enough to assume they'll Google s they don't comprehend. He respected this person too much, one could say.
My controversial philosophical take: Suffering is not inherently unjust or immoral. Feel free to respond!
@@MexicanNerd10is that even controversial?
That guy amused me. I think it's more respectful of viewers' intelligence to not explicitly define the widely understood and self-explanatory term 'hot take' than it is to spell it out.
I think people that are against euthanasia dont understand that there are cases where it is indicated. I am willing to share my experience to give a better understanding why someone might want to end their life on their own terms.
I grew up in a household of neglect and abuse and spent most of my teens living out of black bags without a stable home.
I found a reason to live and have dedicated my life to helping reduce the suffering of others. I worked through my trauma and put myself through school and became a registered veterinary nurse. I have specialised and work in a small animal intensive care unit. I have held many animals during their last breaths and many when they are left are not peaceful.
Euthanasia means good death and in a lot of cases where treatment and recovery is futile, it is a final act of compassion and kindness. It is the cessation of suffering.
I am now 30 years old and also have been diagnosed with Huntingtons disease. Its an incurable, neurodegerative disease with no cure and no treatments. I have started to exhibit the first signs of the disease this year. Left on its own, it takes 10-15 years before I'll be completely bed ridden in a vegetative state.
I'm not afraid to die but I am petrified of slowly rotting. Losing my faculties. Someone who had to be so independent would have to depend on others to perform basic human functions. I dont want that. After all that I have been through, and will continue to go through, do I not also deserve to go quietly, and with dignity on my own terms when the time is right? I do not want to kill myself, I simply want to pass away whilst I am still myself. Do I not deserve that kindness?
Thank you for this. I hope you find peace and have your own choice.
100% agree. People who are against all euthanasia are monsters whose only justification is their religious beliefs.
Here's the way I see it.
Two hundred years ago, a doctor visits a family on the plains. Their uncle is bedridden with a horrible illness. The doctor determines that there's nothing he can do for him. He's a goner.
What does the doctor tell the family? Does he say he'll leave the uncle to a slow and agonizing death? No. He pulls out his six-shooter and says "I can at least make sure he doesn't suffer".
He goes back in the room, and the uncle has already taken his own life. A note rests in his hand: "I'm sorry". How do you think the family reacts? Do they see him as brave? Dignified? Are they supportive of his decision?
I don't like the idea of dying with dignity on your own terms. Something about choosing to walk away from life while you're still comfortable seems inhuman to me. But ending someone's life to prevent a future of unbearable suffering is a monumental act of kindness. It's one we've been doing for thousands of years.
In short, I don't think the choice to die should be yours to make. I think it should be made by the people around you, as an act of kindness from people who don't want to see you suffer.
@@turbovirgin_ Everyone has a right to an opinion but when it encroaches on the rights and welfare of others it becomes dangerous.
Unless you have been given the diagnosis you do not have the qualification or experience to comment on whether someone should have the right to end their life.
I'd argue that allowing the disease to progress where I have no comprehension of what is happening to me is leaving me in a state less than human.
I've walked away from a long term partner and I've decided not to have children as it'd be unethical.
We are born, and then we die and that is it. There is no good, no wicked, no big plan, its just life. Things happen everyday. We add value and determine if something is right or wrong or good or bad. There is no intrinsic truth.
Assisted dying is currently illegal in the UK so I cannot rely on others to end my suffering. If I have the ability to be a DNR then I should have the right to be euthanised. If you had understanding of how assisted dying laws work in the world, you would have known that you must gain informed consent when you are of corpus mentis. This means I need to make decisions whilst I'm still of sound mind. This is the reality of living with a terminal diagnosis.
I would also implore you to think about what quality of life means to you and how you would feel if you weren't able to do the things you love anymore. I've cried at how beautiful the sun setting is, how the feeling of ocean air feels on my face. I understand the beauty of the world but I won't even be able to comprehend that. Imagine you not being able to walk without falling, not being able to put food in your mouth, button your own clothes, even cleaning yourself up after you've gone to the toilet. Imagine not being able to read, or talk or even being able to understand what is being said to you. Would you want this for yourself? Because that is what you are suggesting I live with.
@@turbovirgin_ so in short, you don’t think our lives belong to us, you think we are slaves to those around us.
My hot take is that people often don't properly consider themselves in relation to the philosophical questions they ask. It causes them to anguish over things they don't need to. A classic example would be "what's the meaning of life?" I think it's much more important, from a personal wellbeing standpoint, to consider "why do I want to know what the meaning of life is?" "how would I change if I knew the meaning of life?" etc. When you ask these questions it seems more apparent to me that the original question is malformed and doesn't really need an answer. There are a few different questions with this problem; "what's the true nature of reality?", "do we have free will?", "do we have a soul?", "what is morally correct?" etc. They all have implicit assumptions and motives that originate from our human experiences and it appears more beneficial to me to understand those assumptions and motives and why I have them than the answers to those questions.
Interesting.
I think i already do this because i've never really wondered if there was some intrinsic "meaning of life" and yet it seems for some people it's all they can think about
Apt
“What is the meaning of life” for me always distills into the equally difficult question of “what do I want”
Whilst I agree with your take for a question as subjective as "what is the meaning of life", I think the other examples you give are different kinds of questions. Questions such as "do we have free will" are attempting to understand how the universe operates, motivated by the same sentiments as scientists which isn't true for "what is the meaning of life".
My hot philosophical take is that Alex's facial hair leads to his opinions carrying more weight
Don’t forget about the British accent
@@bronsonvann2662 both of these are relatively mild takes (unless you mean his opinions actually mean more in reality because of these things and not just that people weigh it more because the latter is totally true)
Never trust a person with a beard. If he's hiding his chin, what else is he hiding? Everyone knows the chin is the window to the soul. 😅
@@duncanbrown4184 anything could be lurking in the cleft in Alex's hairy chin.
@@duncanbrown4184🤣🤣🤣
A horse walks into a bar. The barman says "Hey, you've been in here a lot lately. Do you think you have a drinking problem?" The horse responds "I don't think so". And with that, the horse immediately disappears into thin air.
That was the joke. It's a play on René Descartes's "I think therefore I am".
I couldn't tell you the last bit before the joke as I didn't want to put Descartes before the horse.
Fun joke but why is it a horse?
@@SchgurmTewehrCause why not
@@SchgurmTewehrit's BoJack horseman
@@SchgurmTewehrBecause horses are traditionally what you put before Descartes.
That was a roller coaster of a joke. Props.
The darkest stories humanity has come up with do not end with “everybody dies”; they end with the characters being condemned to eternal conscious suffering. From the Greek punishments of Sisyphus, Tantalus, Prometheus etc. to the biblical concept of hell to modern stories like “I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream” to Grimdark concepts such as the sarcophagus / helbrute in Warhammer 40k, or the ending of the video game “Scorn”.
I have no mouth is one of the scariest stories I've read.
Fire punch
So, as someone who has attempted suicide before, I wanted to comment on the suicidality one. I think it's very easy for people who haven't had a lot of contact with suicide to go straight to "you should have a right to choose to die, so we shouldn't interfere with suicide attempts".
I think the thing that's missing in that analysis is the "of sound mind" aspect of decision-making. I do realize this may vary from person to person, but for many people (myself included), active suicidality comes during moments of crisis. The period of time during which you are in an emotional state where you would actually make an attempt (as opposed to just thinking about it) are generally fairly short and very acute. In other words, you are in a heavily altered state of consciousness. And as with signing legal contracts when heavily drunk, we generally accept that certain things you might in theory have the right to do can be abridged when in a heavily altered state.
So, while legal punishment for suicide or suicide attempts like you discussed is pretty abhorrent in my mind, I think it's reasonable to do everything in your power to prevent someone from successfully carrying out an attempt. I am very grateful that the people around me did that for me, and I hope that if I ever get there again, they would do so in the future. (Hopefully I won't but if I do.)
Like all other major decisions in life it should come with the "being of sound mind and body" disclaimer where you have either signed a legally recognisable document ahead of time saying (eg.) "If I ever become mentally/physically disabled beyond an agreed point of satisfaction then I wish to forfeit my life." or you are in a position where you are provided adequate, free counselling to attempt to turn things around before making the final decision.
So how does this apply to people who are not emotionally suicidal? Like you look at things objectively and you come to the logical outcome that its just not worth living anymore? Because this is how I view my life, when its not objectively worth living I will end it, which will probably be soon.
@@teemumiettinen7250what if you are wrong? See 10:57
Then that's what it is. We allow people to make wrong choices constantly, why not in this case?
No one can say it's a wrong choice, though because no one can see into the future. We can see the past, though. If someone has lived 51% of their expected lifetime then they have enough proof from the past to make this decision.
Well by that logic you don‘t have to read a book after reading 51% of it because you already know what is written in the second half
And yes you can do whatever you want but I think there is difference between making bad financial choices for example and ending your life
In one instance there is chance to recover the other is final
One might think that live cannot get better and be a 100 percent certain about it but as you said noone can see into the future. So there is a chance that things will get better. In my personal opinion that is enough to keep going even of there seems to be no evidence for a better life in the future
I cant prove it but ive heard that most people are glad to survive a suicide attempt like the original commentor. Take it as you want
Ive lost a friend to suicide a few years ago and i didn‘t even know that he was struggling. He seemed to have eveything. A caring Family, many friends, a loving girlfriend and a good Job with a promising future. I dont know what was going on inside his head, he didnt tell anyone. I guess he thought that he has to deal with it on his own. And he did. but i wish he wouldnt and instead talked about it. Even if it was with me who wasnt too close of a friend. Instead he left behind a lot of shattered hearts and people wondering how they might have contributed to and whether they could have deterred him from his decision
He was a really good guy and over two years later i still miss him dearly
My mintiest take is that Alex should make more videos like this. The debates are brilliant, but i like his solo videos the most where he is just talking about stuff.
Agreed. I wanted to leave this comment.
Hear, hear!
This is a good comment, err, Yay comment!
Yes
Totally agree
Being in an extreme Christian fundamentalist household, your videos create a really safe space where I can think about philosophy and religion in a much less narrow view. I just wanted to thank you for that, I love your stuff.
youre so real for this
I can relate with that. I WAS an 8th day Independent Fundamental Baptist. I was about as fun as a Prickly Cactus
You might want to try genetically modified skeptic as well if you haven't already. He's really big on giving a community to those who don't feel like they belong to their religious environment irl.
@delikatessbruhe9843 Thanks, Enjoy the Show cuzinz ✋️
I guess. But he's way too shallow for me, for someone who self proclaims as a philosopher. Ok, what he's saying would be interesting in the 16th century, possibly some of the 17th, but in a 21st century context he talks at a child's level.
Calling suicide selfish is the height of irony
I would like to underline and highlight this comment.
I always see it as projection
How so?
I mean, you’re doing something that you think will be to your benefit despite the harm you know it will cause to others.
I’m of the belief that selfishness isn’t always wrong, even as a Christian. It’s selfish to save your own life at the cost of someone else’s discomfort, but it can still be the moral choice as long as you’re not violating their autonomy. Your needs are just as important, morally speaking, as anyone else’s.
@@nanowasabi4421 selfish people are better than selfless people.
"Suicide's a crime. The legal term is irreparable damage to company property. What Eugene did to himself was vandalism." - the Outer Worlds
Haha. Glad I saw something clever today
That's what I was thinking! Clearly suicide was deemed a criminal act because it violated someone's property as in the relation between an absolute monarch and his subjects.
My controversial philosophical take: Suffering is not inherently unjust or immoral. Feel free to respond!
this is so dystopian
@@MexicanNerd10Kinda mild moral subjectivity no? We only come to the conclusion through relative ethics, if a majority of people were masochistic rather than merely a sort of Stockholm syndrome with life suffering would be lesser to them. Not that it isn’t already lesser anyway, imposing people itself causes inevitable harm yet people do it. Driving cars, using electronics or any kind of power appliance usually inadvertently causes pollution which causes harm yet people still do it. People eat more sentient creatures or overeat or throw away causing the waste of resource which indirectly causes harm yet people still do it. I think there’s too many of those to consider in order to live life as you’d constantly be on a paranoid type rope trying to be utmost efficient in order to avoid causing harm, I just think the source of all affliction should be solved instead rather than worrying about how you live.
The libertarian had no choice but to write that he had "free will".
Brutal Hitchslap
He did it because he wanted to because he had to.
We are condemned to be free - Jean Paul Sartre
Whats the hatred toward libertarianism? Seems interesting and somewhat reasonable
@@soffybearI would not call it hatred so much as a misunderstanding of human behaviour. A false belief in our autonomy and our rationality. In truth human behaviour is very determined and very irrational. Group affiliation, our love of others and self destructive behaviour is deep brain biology of areas of the brain we inherited from prehuman ancestors. We are mostly unconscious. Our deep brain impulses are fed to the cerebral cortex which then comes up with a story as to why X would be a "noble" or "honourable" thing to do. We are only informed of our true motivation on a need to know basis by the "deep state" of the mind, like the deep state of a nation.
Take the Iraq war. America did not want to see itself as greedy, avaricious and grasping so the story of WMDs in Iraq made the war "noble". Our minds operate in the same way, protecting us from knowledge of who we reaaly are. This is where libertarianism completely break down. Its model of human motivations are all wrong and ill informed.
I think this should be anonymous to get real shit out of people
No one cares, unless your hot take is evil
This is why no one said "Incest is fine"
@@La0boucherethat would be one of my takes. I value consent probably to a degree more than the average person, so commonly disgusting and immoral things are fine to me as long as its consensual, extending to the consent of the dead (contracts n stuff). The only hard part to avoid is instances of grooming and coercion, but that's hardly unique to incest or other "icky" things.
Children are of course excluded from this responsibility to consent to certain things since their brains are soup.
But it's also hard to draw the line between coerced and consenting, seeing as scams and threats and lapses in judgement are a thing.
@@echiko4932i think one problem is that they should not be allowed to have children. as that both endangers the child and the population. so they would both have to lose the ability to bare children
@theflyingdutchguy9870 But then you would have to enforce that, and of course if you're advocating for incest, those who participate are going to want complete rights as couples. You can either enforce eugenics or you criminalize incest to avoid the discussion altogether. For every reason "someone shouldn't have kids," we get them anyway. You can't tell a group of people "we're going to give you SOME leniency" without expecting them to protest in response for further action.
I have always believed that I had a right to die when I wanted to. I still do. Even when I was a Christian. It is an inner belief. Of course I've always felt compassion and empathy for anyone who committed suicide.
My hot take is that suicide, in most cases is not the best decision one should make. Because when someone commits suicide, they will leave behind people who love them, and because if the problem(s) driving someone to suicide is/are removed, the person will likely not have any desire to commit suicide. However, I believe commiting suicide to hasten death in cases of incurable/unbearable illness or in anticipation of them is justified.
My hot take is that while we have a right to suicide, it is not an ideal route to take. Because when someone commits suicide, they leave behind people who love them, and when their problems are adressed most people stop being suicidal. The exception to this is in cases of terminal illness to hasten death.
If you are religious tho, you don’t own your body so you don’t have the right to die. God owns your body so if there is something He forbids you shouldn’t do it
@@adriani9432yea but its also not good to live for someone elses happiness
@@m780dff Freak accidents are accidents, not like suicide where there is a concious choice to take one's own life. What I was trying to say is that seeking professional help should be prioritized over ending your own life. Terminal ilnesses are a different story, because you are destined to die a slow miserable death anyway with or without professional help, so why not get it overwith.
My moral stance on suicide, is that it is orders of magnitude more moral than murder, and that suicide should not be punished.
Wrt Galileo's dialogues, he also named the pro-tradition character Simplicio. If you start your dialogue by introducing one character as Mr Stupid, it's a pretty safe bet which side you support and which you don't.
Mr Stupid 😂
After watching my Nana suffer for several years, in pain and confusion and terror, while my aunt spent most her time caring for my Nana, causing so much suffering, assisted suicide should absolutely be allowed. I am convinced that my Nana would have filled out a living will while cognizant that allowed for assisted suicide given the physical and mental state she was in.
Same situation here. It was heartbreaking to watch my grannie, an active and beautiful person, completely paralysed, not even able to speak and unwilling to try when she knew it was pointless. And all the suffering was just awful.
That is fine if you have family. But those without family will be thrown out as soon as they are the least bit of a burden. They did it to disabled people during the pandemic. There are dangers that no one thinks about.
@@littlebitofhope1489who is they and how do you know? What do you mean by thrown out?
@@littlebitofhope1489what is happening to disabled people during the pandemic?
@GameTimeWhy
As disabled and near 80 - I can tell you what. Shrugs and excuses, that's what.
Mate I can't get over the fact that I started following you only when you were 16...and you have now grown into such a well balanced thinker.
Hehe.. I remember his physics videos xD
Where has the psychedelic chest of drawers gone?
He quit veganism (which isn't actually possible) and whined about easily fixable shit because of all the solutions he has access to that almost no one else has because of his extreme privilege and you call him a "well balanced thinker."
I think you're "an unthinking clown."
I think, assuming it is to be illegal, the only sentence for attempted suicide should be compulsory *free* therapy sessions. Perhaps loosely enforced by the therapist literally showing up at your house so that you can't just 'forget' to go.
Of course this has safety concerns that would have to be worked out, but it was just the first thing that came to mind. I'm sure there's some way of doing this properly.
We do have court ordered therapy as part of plea deals, for example. I'm sure a similar system can apply to suicide attempts.
Then people will take suicide to get free therapy
this already exists in the form of mental hospitals, but they're not free and often people leave worse off than before bc of how much debt they're in. in the us i should clarify
In my country (Germany) suicide isn't illegal. However, if you fail at it and are found in a state where you need help, courts of law take away your autonomy and get you hospitalized until you are seen as not in danger of harming yourself. "Hospitalized" meaning locked away in a mental hospital, together with a bunch of other folk who are a regarded a danger to themselves OR OTHERS (!). At the same time, medical assistance in suicide is still not fully legalized here. Basically what you suggest, but having seen such a ward from the inside (thankfully only as a visitor) I'd say they are a really good place to start wanting to kill yourself...
Imagine believing in such a thing as therapy. Weak simple minds.
My philosophical hot take is:
“Forgiveness is not needed to move on from the past but acceptance is.”
I say this because when I was in group therapy the constant notion of “forgiveness” kept coming up and that being the end goal to move on from trauma. For me and to this day I find this a silly concept. To me when you forgive someone it means “what you did wasn’t a big deal and it’s okay” and I believe their are certain actions that people can do that don’t warrant forgiveness. For me I feel like acceptance is better than forgiveness. I accept that this situation has happened and can move beyond it but your actions can’t be forgiven. And I feel like not forgiving someone doesn’t mean you can’t move on from the situation as I feel forgiveness really only makes the person who was wrong feel better. But when you accept a situation for what it is and what happened you can feel better because now you can work on moving beyond that situation and not have it limit you anymore.
not a hot take
@pogd740 every take in the world doesnt have to be a universally innovative society impacting thought to be a hottake
Interesting. I think this is kind of in 'definition of terms' territory. I definitely don't see forgiveness that way. I would say forgiveness is something that is most relevant when someone did something in fact is a big deal and not ok. If it wasn't a big deal, then it's almost - not quite, but almost - a case of why would the idea of forgiveness even come up, if it wasn't that serious? It's the very seriousness that makes it a matter that needs to be forgiven if the relationship is to be restored. I also am of the opinion that forgiving is at least as important for the person doing the forgiving as the person they are extending forgiveness to for whatever offense. Not to forgive is to retain bitterness, and add self-injury to the initial offense.
The idea of forgiveness probably stems from a time where we still needed to get along with people no matter their level of previous wrongdoing. In our day and age, where we can cut people out from our lives with little consequence it has become a somewhat abstract concept that nobody needs to implement if they don't want to.
We'd have to look back to the old times, the bad times, where you had to care personally for your aging parents, no matter how abusive they were during your childhood, when "until death do us part" was meant quite literally, when wars weren't fought against foes from an ocean or two away, but the dividing line ran straight through the country. In such situations, where you are still required to care, to coexist, to engage in civilised activity with one another, it was necessary to forgive, to actively suppress whatever negativity you might justifiably feel and treaet the other person with kindness. Only in such a context would we figure out our attitude towards forgiveness.
@@Volkbrecht o.o
My hot take is individualism can only meaningfully exist within a group. Absent of a group to differentiate oneself from, individualism is meaningless.
Like Sydrome from the incredibles said analogously
“… And when everyone's super... no one will be.”
I would argue that existence outside of a group is inherently the most pure form of individualism ever possible
I would argue you two need a hobby 😃
@@jeffmunkynutz1568 sucks it happens to be philosophy :D
@@thealphasam7350i think it probably falls into some sort of specific definition of philosophical vs reality kind of discussion
@@jeffmunkynutz1568Philosophy is an excellent and mind stimulating hobby that can help you think more clearly and improve yourself. I think this is a hobby that beats many other hobbies, why would you argue they need another one? Let use our minds- the most powerful organ- to explore the world, damn it!
Alex suddenly changed shirts in the middle of saying something, and then I quickly realized, “oh, he found the perfect segway for the ad read later on and couldn’t be bothered to wear the same shirt.” Respect.
I think it was done internationally.
@@rambunctiousvegetableautocorrect
i’m gonna be honest, these types of videos combined with the comment section are amazing and enlightening, i really enjoy this stuff for some reason
I watched a video the other day about the concentration camp victims who were forced to move and cremate the bodies killed in the gas chamber. All day long they’d have to lie to the other prisoners: “It’s ok, it’s just a shower” just to keep them from panicking. One of them had to do this for a family member. I’d like to see the person who claims “life is ALWAYS worth living” do that for a day and still make that claim.
Although this is an extreme example, one could imagine reasoning as to why someone in said scenario would wish to live.
Probably the most likely scenario, being able to see or possibly even affect being freed from said internment. If you have belief in that happening, I can see a reason or plenty of reasons based off of that for why you would keep living.
Perhaps out of sheer spite, even
Well, what's the alternative?
Personally, I'd like to think that even after years of dehumanization, mental torture, and starvation, I would still find enough strength and outrage within me to tell those CC guards to burn in hell.
@@turbovirgin_ It’s easy to be a hero and a tough guy in the safety and comfort of your home when the horror is hypothetical or happening to someone else.
Can people please stop using fiction to make arguments?
@@chimpinaneckbrace Yeah, and it takes incredible strength to look the brutality of the SS in the face and say "What you're doing is pure evil, and I will not be an accomplice to your atrocities." I don't think that would make me a hero. I would just be doing what any human being should do.
What would you prefer I do instead? Give in to the violence and do what the guards say? Take my own life? Not be in a concentration camp in the first place?
I bet the sponsor loved the Segway in the suicide question😂
Segue, "Segway" the proper name for a type of motorized conveyance.
As someone who’s not watched the video yet, I’m looking forward to seeing how Segways tie into this question.
@@MatthewFearnley Now, admitting to reading the comment section _before_ you watch the video, that's at least a bit spicy. But, maybe I'm wrong. I've surprizingly often seen people complaining in the comment section that people drop spoilers. I kid you not. I don't understand how these peoples brains work.
@@egilsandnes9637ehh, I sometimes scroll through the comments during the first half of a video if I’m not particularly gripped by the content (I think that’s the goldfish attention span zoomer brain in me)
Didn’t do it with this one as most of Alex’s content is interesting enough I don’t need comments to hold my attention but some videos are dull asl
i also have to agree with the one saying you ahould be able to take your own life because you didnt choose to be born. assisted suicide is legal here in the netherlands. my mom's best friends husband did this. my mom's friend happened to be visiting us. wich she did every vew month. at least once a year. when she suddenly got a call. that call was either the husband or the hospital (i dont remember exactly) the call was that he was done with it. and chose to have his life ended by assisted suicide. this was a very sad day, but i am glad its a thing. people should have the choice to have a peaceful end. my grandmother for example did not get that. she died in a hospital gasping for air trying to yell out that she had to throw up. she died in front of my mother.
So your mom's friend knew nothing of his plans to end his life? If that's true (in this or in any other similar case), I think it's not only an unethical move on his part, but I would question the legality of it--even where assisted suicide is legal. The reason being, marriage is a legal contract between each individual, and between the two of them as one and the state. Under that contract, each person legally obligated to put the best interests of their partner on the same level as their own. Sneaking away to die without telling your partner seems cruel and unfair, as they will be unprepared for the emotional aspect as well as the financial aspect as well..
@@SineEyed Stupidest take. Victim blaming.
@@SineEyed You win stupid bastard of the day, good job.
what a coward he was.
hope he is somewhere peaceful (hell)
Sir, yes sir.@@YourAverageRUclipsCommentor
I'd love to see a thorough video about "ethical emotivism". Thank you for your work.
I love that you've given every argument an easy out because they're just emoting
I THOROUGHLY enjoyed this. It was brief, light, humorous and still pretty stimulating.
It was nice to see this opinion/ video-essay style of content being uploaded again.
> brief, light, humorous and still pretty stimulating.
Title of your sex tape!
Are we not gonna talk about the spiciness of that ground news read and its literally perfect timing and placement? Well done, sir. Well done.
Fascinating video, love seeing your reaction to these takes, a second video would be amazing!
I loved this video, please do more. Thank you for your work !
I can imagine a lot of moral scenarios that are icky and one would rationally conclude that it isn't wrong. I am highly skeptical of moral emotivism being true
Its there because it helped us survive. People who liked incest got damaged babies and those babies couldnt reproduce thus their bloodline ends and we are left with people who dont like incest.
@@Narko_Marko having a reason for existing doesn't make it true
Agree. Some people find homosexual sex disgusting, most people find old people having sex disgusting. These are icky in the same way and sometimes to the same extent as the ickyness of incest. I think they're different
@@Narko_Markowhat about homosexual incest?
@@tagliatelle i mean, if it exists, it exists thus making it true, i just tried to explain why i think it exists.
Alex has had the best atheistic-agnostic commentary of every atheist/agnostic ever. The most intellectually honest ever
Yay Alex! Boo the rest!
I think he focuses FAR too much on comparing and contrasting atheism/agnosticism vs Christianity, as if Christianity is the default religious view.
This is somewhat understandable as Christianity undeniably was the default religious framework in which these subjects were examined in most Western philosophy. That said in an age when you aren't going to be stoned to death for not doing so there's no rational reason to confine yourself philosophically to atheism vs Christianity.
This is important because Christianity, or any specific religion, is almost impossible to rationally defend over other religions as they are all fantastical in ways that are plainly arbitrary/tied to a specific time/place/culture.
Atheism vs Christianity isn't a philosophically relevant question at this point. It's atheism vs ???, because religion can be anything you decide it is (or more likely what you were told it is as a child). Christianity vs any other religion is intractable rationally and atheism vs believing whatever you want is true isn't even a debate.
@@jyjjy7 > It's atheism vs ???
You might struggle to make cogent arguments against something that hasn't been defined yet.
And, just to head off one potential response (Or, an attempt to make an argument against something that doesn't yet exist! Will you allow me to succeed? It's quite the spicy paradox!), in this context "pro-atheism" arguments are not necessarily quite the same thing as "anti-???" arguments.
@@johnnypopstar I used ??? in reference to the problem with faith I pointed out and labelled intractable. Faith based beliefs are necessarily arbitrary and personal and objectively almost uniformly artifacts of upbringing, ethnicity and the local culture of the time. You can argue for any of The Holy Trinity, Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Ra, Quetzalcoatl, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the invisible purple unicorn, over the others but those arguments are necessarily ultimately faith based, often explicitly and proudly so.
It is the same reason Pascal's wager doesn't work; which religion's eternal infinite reward is one supposed hedge towards if one accepts the premise? Most religious doctrines are mutual exclusive requiring worship of this deity or that pantheon over another, often with divine retribution for choosing wrong, but there's no objective or rational standard by which to choose, though most believers will be able to cite things the consider sufficient evidence for their specific faith it is only actually so from a perspective informed by the insular confirmation bias nurtured by most religions.
What I'm saying is that even among the religious one person's religion is objectively mythology to those of a different time and place, and often even many others of the same time and place. From any meaningful anthropological perspective religion is a social construct, one whose specific structure, ideology and goals serve social functions, ones orthogonal at best to any serious rational inquiry into the nature of objective reality.
Ignoring all this to meet Christians halfway and handle them with kid gloves by taking the specifics of their mythology and its long standing philosophically history of tortured apologetics seriously is what this channel is about really. It colors to the point of distortion how he presents much of the conflict between faith based ideologies and rationality, both directly and in discussions with others.
It's because he's way more philosophical so he covers a wide variety of topics that are still in a similar ballpark. For most atheist creators, atheism content is all they do, which is totally fine, it's a different field. But I think going deep into philosophy provides more context.
Honestly, this is my favorite video of yours! Looking forward to some more in the future!
14:30 Facepalm at Justin Briarley having his atheist character give the easy to defend intellectually honest answer "I don't know" only to change his mind to "From nowhere I guess." (a position held by very few if any serious cosmologists and philosophers) just to make them easier to argue against
Exactly. That's a strawman if I have ever seen one.
Exactly, I believe we exist from something, I just don’t think it matters or will affect me . If there is a god that created everything to be a specific way and wanted you to acknowledge him, surely he could make it that you were born knowing that/unable to do things against what he wants.
I simply loved this!
Really enjoyed this format!
i actually didnt realize until now how often and how effective self-narrated dialogue is. I guess i've never used that method to make a point, but it is true that i have come across many texts and videos in which people use this form
This has to be one of my fav vids of your recent content
I'm so glad I found this channel
This was a fun one, if love to see another 😊
My hot take: modern political systems and laws are made in a way that pretend we aren't human
Because in their eyes we aren’t…
Minty.
True. Someone that gets forced to study for all time can do better than someone happy taking time for theirselves. Also, we're also able to be kicked off at 18. If this isn't treating as robot I don't know what is.
I like to watch channels that are similar to your kind of videos, and i think you are the clearer speaker i have come across. Just wanted to let you know this!
Very interresting more content like this please!
This was great!
Would also love to hear you dive more into emotivism.
Great video. You definitely do more like this.
8:50 I would say true forgiveness is more contingent on the actions of the person, not just the words. You can feel bad and be sorry without changing.
I enjoyed this video. Do more. Thank you
i like this video format :) more of this please
Keen for more please Alex, top tier content.
Heavens! You're extra indian spicy with your comebacks and jabs in this video, Alex. Perfect form! Love seeing your witty side
I've never heard of emotional emotivism before, but as soon as I heard the explanation, it's something I've unknowingly agreed with. I do suspect there's a lot of cases where people form their moral values based around how it makes them feel, and I feel is especially prevalent in the sexual sense, whether it be for homosexuality or fetishes. It's nice to find out there's actually a philosophical argument for this.
Of course morality is based on feelings and emotions. What else do humans have?
@@SchgurmTewehrsky daddy rules
@@ACFL69 lol
@@SchgurmTewehr Exactly. At first glance, this position seems to me a bit like kicking the can down the road because it stops at emotions. Emotions are also a reaction, and I believe it is pretty commonly understood that emotions and rationality don't exclude each other. The anger at perceived unfairness, for instance, might be biologically dependent, but that doesn't stop it from being a rational position independently of that.
This is just my hot take upon hearing it for the first time, though. I'll have to read into it more.
Not every day I get introduced to a new ethical position.
@@ACFL69still Emotion.
Hot take: Living eternally in heaven would turn into hell sooner or later
People indeed have no notion on what eternity actually means...
Yes. Watch „the Good Place“
@@SPDLand not only eternity, also words like allmighty, allknowing. People often throw around those kind of words, but rarely can imagine the implications of their concepts.
@@SchgurmTewehr Ok. It sounds creepy, like the Ministry of Love.
This assumes that the passage of time is felt when experiencing eternity, which is itself questionable.
I appreciate the content warning at the start
Please do this every month!!!
16:00 would have liked to hear more on him being unsettled and his personal beliefs that leave him "unsettled"
Probably one of my favorite alex videos in a while
Riveting as always Alex 🙌
Great video! Would love another like this :)
Dan Mclellan's last video talked about an online lecture on the synthesis of the concept of hell. I don't recall who's presenting, but it's a "pay what you think" arrangement so anybody can listen to a scholar's explanation of how the modern concept of hell was invented.
Hoping for a part 2
I think the reason why most people find incest "icky" is simply that it's unusual. A lot of us have siblings, but a vast majority of us would never think of them as potential sexual partners. Just the idea of me potentially having sex with my sister makes me uncomfortable, simply because I'm not attracted to her and I could never imagine being attracted to her. However, that doesn't mean that someone else can't have such feeling for their sibling and I shouldn't project my own feelings about my siblings to other people and their sublings. Just because I feel this way about my sibling doesn't mean that everyone should feel the same about their siblings. Another thing is that many people miss the "consensual" part of consensual incest, when they see incest they immediately imagine a father raping his 10-year old daughter, which is definitely a problem. The only reason why I can think of incest as being wrong from a secular view is that it could lead to genetic defects in potential offspring, but even that isn't entirely certain based on some studies I've seen.
The funny thing is though that if you look at commonly searched phrases on porn sites, incest is actually quite common, whether it's with step-sisters, sisters, step-moms or whatever. So for some reason people condemn it in public, but then secrectly fantasize about it in private xD
What’s your stance on the criminalization of consensual consanguinamory (which is the status quo in much of the world, including the United Kingdom and most of the United States)? You rightly pointed out doubt about the average layman’s interpretation of the severity of inbreeding, but even then, it would be eugenics to use risks of inbreeding as justification for the criminalization thereof, would it not?
Of course, to see an example of someone unaffected by inbreeding (gone right), look no further than the widely admired Cleopatra.
@@kevinnavarro402 I don't know if I'd call it eugenics. To me, eugenics is more like forcing certain people TO breed, rather than forbidding them from it. If the risks of producing a child with birth defects is very high I would be against it, cause it just produces unnecessary suffering. But I'm not sure that the risk really is that high as is generally believed.
@@tommy_svk There’s a subtype of eugenics called negative eugenics, which in the twentieth century (when eugenics was more popular) had people involuntarily sterilized or worse. This even happened in places like the United States, not just Germany, although not on the same scale. I’ll grant that the motivations might not be exactly the same as those you’re considering, but it’s still about preventing undesirable traits by restricting freedoms, which indeed is the same thing as negative eugenics. The eugenicists of then also, in their own way, cared about preventing unnecessary suffering, even if it was just in the long-term, but that didn’t stop them from inflicting unnecessary suffering; it inflicts unnecessary suffering to deprive anyone of the basic dignity of reproductive liberty.
In any case of extremely high risk (consanguineous or not), I can sympathize with making exceptions to reproductive liberty, but I would rather have alleviated through healthcare any suffering that comes rather than use suffering to prevent suffering. I think that’s the most pluralistic solution to different normative views on the matter; that way if a couple thinks it’s wrong to reproduce, they’re free not to; if a couple has a fetus with detected serious defects and they think it’s wrong to let such fetus live, they’re free to terminate. Imagine if a couple (unrelated or otherwise) were shocked to detect with genetic screening that their fetus would grow up with a deeply serious congenital defect, but it was their sincere belief that the right thing to do for their child was to choose life and tend to the child’s needs the best they could; imagine they were robbed of this choice by a government forcing an involuntary termination of pregnancy upon them. To me, it’s the same calculus.
Of course, the risk with inbreeding isn’t generally as high as people would have you believe, but there’s a way around such cloudiness. With genetic counseling, today each couple could, before reproduction, have their specific risk measured and determined. That would be the most objective way of determining risk given the variability of risk both within consanguineous and non-consanguineous couples.
Agree. Also that people have a problem with power/trust/grooming/consent, not actual incest.
I agree that there is no reason to consider consensual incest to be any different from any other form of consensual sex when it comes to it's morality. The part I'm unsure about is having children with siblings or other close relatives as there are significantly increased risks of genetic problems. The closest analogy I can think of is heavy drinking or smoking during pregnancy which is also known to be detrimental to the baby's health. In this case it is generally expected of the mother to sacrifice those liberties in the interest of her child's health, but not having children with a loved partner is a lot more of a sacrifice. I'm obviously against any form of eugenics, but even criminalizing reproduction with a few very close relatives is very different from forbidding some people to reproduce entirely and already included when outlawing incest completely.
I once genuinely tried to consider not existing. It really didn’t do anything but make me start crying from the pain of how hard it was to even imagine my own nonexistence. So I absolutely will say “I think therefore I am” is about the impossibility of not believing in your own existence.
Hmmm so it really is true people are afraid of not existing not just dying? Though I still don’t get it… isn’t not existing just like dreamless sleep, eternity in a blink, but you never wake up? Why would that make someone cry? If only dying could be just like falling asleep… ataraxia, panacea. I can well believe in the nothingness for when the continuity of my connectome ceases to function. “I think, therefore I am” I believe just describes that you can’t experience not being, not that you can’t believe the possibility. As when you are not being you cannot experience. That it informs one of the innate presuppositions of reason above the banality of certain types of nihilism pertaining to solipsism and brain in the jar type thought.
Interesting. I actually do feel that “certainty” infers truth necessarily, but people are often mistaken in their certainty, mistaking it for conviction.
The trouble is - when our certainty is wrong, in whose estimation is it wrong? Yours? Mine? Consensus? Religion? Politics?
When it comes to a whole lot of important subjects, I accept only one opinion as relevant - and that's my own.
@@jackwaycombe We would be wrong according to actual reality, not an estimation of it.
Incest is ok, when does not result in a child. That's my incest take. Cause incest doesn't harm anyone unless they have a child. I can't condemn something that doesn't harm anyone.
What about the person being raped asshole?
@@LifeStrike2030you’re adding your own stuff to the story, it’s irrelevant.
@@Ibloop rape is the vast majority of incest that takes place, and pedophelia is the largest subset of that. Your opinion on fact is irrelevant
@@Lereyiu If you say it out loud, it will hurt people. But if you keep it in your thoughts and treat them the same regardless, sure you can think that.
@@Lereyiu So, it just makes you feel icky? That isn't enough hurting. Saying that doesn't hurt people, so I keep saying it.
this is great! i'd like more of these videos
Super interesting format
At 17:10 the Churchill quote you had mentioned is removed from the context of what he was saying.
The full quote is: "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
He, himself, was not saying that democracy is the worst form of government except all others that have been tried, he was saying that people express that thought.
It doesn't negate what you were saying about people having thought that of democracy, but to attribute it to Churchill is also probably something to be avoided.
Anyways, awesome content, keep up the good work!
Here's an actual hot take, religious people in my view tend to be worse people than non-religious people as the logical jumps religion allows for lead many religious people to not be able to morally justify their worldview past "a 2000 year-old book said so". I also think this is why several elements of the modern fascist movements are heavily religious, because if you believe your own beliefs are from a supreme being and the consequence for not following his will is eternal hell than you will find it near impossible to ever challenge your own beliefs. I also believe these people are very susceptible to being told what to think from people with the right aesthetics.
I could go into more detail but the length of this would be unusable in a video if I did that.
Obviously true. Paradoxically only controversial to religious people.
Your dumb ass really must've felt so cool and smart and unique pretending that this was a novel, hot take on an atheist's youtube channel
agree
Next time you should also make a RUclips community post for this. I have some mildly spicy takes that would be interesting to see you react to
HOLY FUCKING CHRIST I REMEMBER WATCHING YOU LIKE A FEW YEARS AGO! I THOUGHT YOU QUIT, SEEING THIS JUST MADE MY DAY
I definitely enjoy this format, and I hope to see you more often interact with audience, because this is the only area that I think your public presence is insufficient.
Alex, I'd like your take on the split brain experiments, a video which discussed it was recently recommended to me by the algorithm, and I'm interested on your take of its implications(presupposing an objective world of course and everything else).
Idk how i got here, but this is very interesting!! A break from the algorithm slops that i have been consuming
As far as I have learned, there is no (rational) logically consistent argument against consensual incest that does not also curtail the freedom--that is, the bodily autonomy and personal responsibility--of others; if anyone thinks they know of one, then I would very much appreciate to hear it.
True.
Ikr? We need more Hapsburg like dynasties around to rule. Products of incest, just like you! 🥺👉👈
Grooming, that is it. You can’t have s*x with someone who raised you or was in your life since birth because the only way they would agree to it is if they wanted to do it from the beginning, that places you into a vulnerable position in which they can easily groom you into a s*xual relationship.
Couldn't you make the same arguments for pedophilia, beastiality and all manners of debauchery though🤦♀️
I too think it's fine. The most used argument of "the probability of disabled offspring" is pathetic, because what if we're just having fun? What if I'm not ovulating? What if I have my eggs frozen? I do not have a twin, by the way, but as a bissexual autossexual, if I had one, SMASH.
I truly believe there is nothing wrong with sex between brothers and/or sisters if it doesn’t cause suffering
So no disfigured baby, no pregnancy problems, no family members who find out and no people who feel gross about it who have to find out or even think about it. Also I would question whether the underlying causes of the incestuous attraction have anything to do with suffering.
@@SchgurmTewehr sex and reproduction is not the same thing
So... Your initial comment is conditional?
Reproduction is the natural result of sex, which can be avoided through various means.
@@SchgurmTewehr You seriously think merely finding out or thinking about it to be equivalent to suffering? Now that’s spicy.
Tell me, where was the suffering when Cleopatra’s parents inbreeded, had a normal pregnancy, and produced a widely admired, non-disfigured, female ruler of ancient Egypt? And nobody had any qualms with that fact either; it was part of their culture; even gods of their pantheon married consanguinamorously, inbreeded, and produced other gods therefrom. Of course, I’m not saying inbreeding is always healthy; even outbreeding isn’t always healthy; that’s what genetic counseling is for. Why should we criminalize consenting consanguinamorists?
@@SchgurmTewehr the first two are problems absolutely the second two however just dont really matter that much if you ask me you might as well say race mixing is wrong using that logic
Here's a take that might be spicy: ceteris paribus, it's better that a person who wants to stay alive be able to than that they die before they're ready. You'd think this would be minty, but everyone seems to want to make exceptions to it.
The anti suicide takes are crazy cause "in short, I don't think the choice to die should be yours to make" is the wildest take.
The eucharist cannibalism take was proper good spicy 👍I'm going to suggest this from now on.
Make this a series.
Agreed. I have a crazy spicy take I'd love for Alex to tackle.
@@sumthinwateva2863same, involving consent of the dead
I was today years old when I decided that if Alex ever writes a book, I’m gonna buy it
Today years old is a good age.
Great presentation
i wish you would’ve went into more detail about time not existing and you take on that. but this video is awesome !
The libertarian free will joke was 10/10, made me literally laugh out loud when I was riding my bike home from work
Lol I just realised it went over my head
My philosophic hot take it’s that there’s a way of having free will, at least an imaginative one. If you were the system itself that you are inserted in with no thing else outside of your own system, every action on the system would be completely your decision without any outside interference cause there’s no outside.
That depends on what you define a decision to be. You could argue that an all-comprehending system may not have "decisions" as we define them to be, even though if it _had_ decisions they couldn't possibly be for any reason other than free will.
@@gaopinghu7332 Yeah I think you are right. But I think I would define “choice” as the act of a brain with consciousness working towards something. And if there’s nothin else besides the brain itself to work on this being would have “free will” at least on a causal way.
this is mindbending
Great video!
Jonathan Haidt I think also did a study regarding the source of moral judgements and his results basically supported ethical emotovism in that even when people assertain their moral judgements are based on the minimization of suffering for instance, they ultimately are based on the affect of disgust.
"Apparently you could've." Laughed for a good long while at that one, but I'm not sure I had any choice.
Got another Hot Take: Everything is One and always right the way it is in this moment. We fail to recognize this unity because of our tendency to identify ourselves with mental concepts which we then *think* we are. We do that using language which is inherently divisive and with preconceived notions. This alienates us from the "outside world" or rather ourselves since there is no true division to anything.
Great video btw Alex!
Interesting.
Have you read "the power of now"?
So more or less Buddhist mindfulness teachings. Which I must say I agree on
@@rorybessell8280 yes definitely goes in that direction, although as in all big belief systems there is some "cultural noise" I would call it which kina messes with the core teaching. The interesting thing is to conceptually understand it is not that hard but to actually experience it on a daily basis is a whole other thing. But so worth it❤️
@@herrqwertz3567 yes, definitely shaped my world view big time! I can also recommend "A new Earth" by Tolle and the books/talks of Alan Watts! + if one is more into novels I highly recommend the peaceful warrior series by Dan Millman. They're all pointing in the same direction :)
Some hippie shit
Cool video Alex
about the forgiveness thing, some people also forgive too often and without recieving proper redress and I think that is also bad, not forgiveness itself, but giving it out freely, instead of letting people earn your forgiveness.
Didn’t expect a battery of theological claims right off the bat… I don’t feel like they understood the assignment
Yeah! I was some how dissappointed
Those people never do. They just write that stuff no matter where they end up online & get doubly annoying if they think the video content might somehow be ungodly, for whatever reason. A whole slew of such people seem to think philosophy that isn't grounded entirely in religion is just a trick to turn people against god, and is therefore the enemy.
The topic of suicide is hard to speak about due to stigma. Glad I'm not the only one who thinks as you do on the subject, Alex.
Please make more of these videos!